gregoryjenks

Author: Gregory C. Jenks

  • Pentecost 14B (02 September 2012)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Song of Solomon 2:8-13 and Psalm 45:1-2, 6-9
    • James 1:17-27
    • Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23

     

    Introduction

    In some ways, this week represents a transition in the Sunday lections:

    • We begin a series from the ancient Jewish Wisdom writings
    • We begin a series from James, a classic Christian “wisdom” text
    • We return to Mark, the default Gospel for Year B

     

    First Reading: Song of Solomon

    After a lengthy series in the prophetic historical narratives of Samuel and Kings (material known as the “Former Prophets” in the Hebrew Bible), the RCL now begins a series of weeks during which the OT reading is drawn from the wisdom literature of ancient Israel:

    • SongSol 2:8-13
    • Prov 22:1-2,8-9,22-23
    • WisSol 7:26-8:1 (or, Prov 1:20-33)
    • Prov 31:10-31
    • Esther 7:1-6,9-10; 9:20-22
    • Job 1:1; 2:1-10
    • Job 23:1-9,16-17
    • Job 38:1-7,(34-41)
    • Job 42:1-6,10-17
    • Ruth 1:1-18
    • Ruth 3:1-5; 4:13-17
    • 1 Samuel 1:4-20

    While Esther, Ruth and the story of Hannah (1Sam 1) are not strictly “wisdom texts,” they do portray women as significant characters and active agents of God’s Wisdom.
    The Song of Solomon is one of several wisdom texts attributed to Solomon by later authors.

    Within the Hebrew Bible:

    • Proverbs
    • Ecclesiastes, or Qoheleth
    • Song of Solomon, or Song of Songs, or Canticles

    In the Greek Bible (LXX):

    • Wisdom of Solomon

    Among the Old Testament Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha:

    • Odes of Solomon
    • Psalms of Solomon

    The Song of Solomon is a joyful affirmation of sexual love, and its inclusion in the canon has proved something of an embarrassment to pious readers. As it fails to mention God even once, its place in the canon was challenged in ancient times. Traditional Jewish and Christian exegesis has understood this erotic poem as an allegory of the divine love for Israel or the Church, but more recently commentators have accepted the plain sense of the text.

    Michael V. Fox [HarperCollins Bible Commentary] observes:

    The present commentary reads the Song of Songs as a secular poem about unmarried, human lovers. Such a song would originally have been sung for entertainment (a use that Rabbi Akiva mentions, and deplores, in the second century A.D.). Only in the course of long use was it reinterpreted as a religious document and included in the biblical canon. The Song of Songs is a celebration of private human experience. It treasures adolescent love and does not seek to infuse a “greater” meaning into this joyous experience. It does not even use the opportunity to extol, or appeal for, the blessings of procreation, family, and prosperity. Love is its own justification. [p. 472]

    The excerpt chosen for use this week centers around a night time visit to the woman by her lover. Here, as in other parts of the Song, the lovers are assumed to be equal partners in the relationship:

    The couple’s relationship is strikingly egalitarian, as if bracketed out for the moment from the assumptions of a patriarchal society. Though social constraints restrict the girl more than the boy, within the one-to-one relationship their possession is mutual (2:16), their desires indistinguishable, and their description of each other of much the same sort. This is an idealization of love, but not one devoid of roots in private experience. [Fox, 472f]

    Those patriarchal assumptions are paraded in the designated psalm portion. Psalm 45 is most likely a royal wedding song, and it celebrates without any sense of shame the militarism, corruption and exploitation that was endemic in such societies. The following verses are excised from the text read in services, but they reveal the dominant social values of the biblical world:

    Gird your sword on your thigh, O mighty one, in your glory and majesty.
    In your majesty ride on victoriously for the cause of truth and to defend the right;
    let your right hand teach you dread deeds.
    Your arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; the peoples fall under you.
    Hear, O daughter, consider and incline your ear; forget your people and your father’s house,
    and the king will desire your beauty. Since he is your lord, bow to him;
    the people of Tyre will seek your favor with gifts, the richest of the people45:13 with all kinds of wealth.
    The princess is decked in her chamber with gold-woven robes;
    in many-colored robes she is led to the king; behind her the virgins, her companions, follow.
    With joy and gladness they are led along as they enter the palace of the king.

    Torah as Identity and Mission

    The passage from Deuteronomy 4, listed as an alternative in the RCL this week, comes from another of the major deuteronomistic speeches mentioned last week in connection with Joshua 24.

    In this case, we have an appeal for Torah observance placed on the lips of Moses.

    The faith that is expressed in this literary fiction is one centered around Torah. In this 7C BCE document we can see the emerging self-identity of “Israel” (in fact, more properly “Judah” centered on Jerusalem) as a moral community rather than simply a political entity. At least that is the case being argued by the prophetic reformers whose agenda was being advanced by the production of the Deuteronomic History running from Deuteronomy through Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings.

    Here are religious leaders with a vision for a society that builds a reputation for wisdom and discernment, rather than military prowess or mercantile success. Their community identity and also their collective mission derived from this sense of faithfulness to the divine Torah.

    In the designated psalm portion (Ps 15), we catch a glimpse of another expression of Torah observance.

    Jacob Neusner cites a much later example of Judaism’s ongoing reflection on the meaning of Torah:

    Six hundred and thirteen commandments were given to Moses, three hundred and sixty-five negative ones, corresponding to the days of the solar year, and two hundred forty-eight positive commandments, corresponding to the parts of man’s body…

    David came and reduced them to eleven: A Psalm of David [Psalm 15] Lord, who shall sojourn in thy tabernacle, and who shall dwell in thy holy mountain? (i) He who walks uprightly and (ii) works righteousness and (iii) speaks truth in his heart and (iv) has no slander on his tongue and (v) does no evil to his fellow and (vi) does not take up a reproach against his neighbour, (vii) in whose eyes a vile person is despised but (viii) honors those who fear the Lord. (ix) He swears to his own hurt and changes not. (x) He does not lend on interest. (xi) He does not take a bribe against the innocent, …

    Isaiah came and reduced them to six [Isaiah 33:25–26]: (i) He who walks righteously and (ii) speaks uprightly, (iii) he who despises the gain of oppressions, (iv) shakes his hand from holding bribes, (v) stops his ear from hearing of blood (vi) and shuts his eyes from looking on evil, he shall dwell on high.

    Micah came and reduced them to three [Micah 6:8]: It has been told you, man, what is good and what the Lord demands from you, (i) only to do justly, and (ii) to love mercy, and (iii) to walk humbly before God …

    Isaiah came again and reduced them to two [Isaiah 56:1]: Thus says the Lord, (i) keep justice and (ii) do righteousness.

    Amos came and reduced them to a single one, as it is said, For thus says the Lord to the house of Israel, Seek Me and live.

    Habakkuk further came and based them on one, as it is said [Habakkuk 2:4], But the righteous shall live by his faith.

    — Talmud, b. Makkot, 24(a) [cited in Jacob Neusner, The Way of Torah, 22]

     

    Second Reading: Christian wisdom

    The letter of James is a distinctive voice from the first generation of Christianity. It claims to have been written by the brother of Jesus. At the very least, James represents a way of being Christian that is less driven by the emerging christologies of the Cross (as in Paul) or Divine Wisdom (John). Here is a 1C Christian community that understands its link to Jesus as being through the family of Jesus and which preserves a particularly practical expression of faith in which right action takes precedence over correct doctrine.

    Luke T. Johnson, author of a recent commentary on James (Anchor Bible, Volume 37a. 1995), characterizes the book as follows:

    The teaching of James is general rather than particular, traditional rather than novel, moral rather than theological. The goal of the writing is not so much right thinking as right acting. The fundamental contrast is between verbal profession and action; when James contrasts “faith” and “works” (2:14), he sets empty belief in opposition to lived practice. [HarperCollins Commentary, 1162]

    Given the current RCL focus on texts from ancient Israel’s wisdom tradition, James’ affinities with the tradition are also noteworthy:

    James is remarkable for its positive appropriation of Torah, whose separate aspects it mediates to the messianic community. The short exhortations concerned with practical behavior resemble and incorporate elements of the wisdom tradition, reaching from Hellenistic moral philosophy to the biblical books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. … James also affirms the law, calling it the “law of liberty” (2:12), which is summarized by the Decalogue and the “law of love” (Lev 19:18. cf. 2:8-11). James elaborates this commandment in the light of Lev. 19:11-19 and Jesus’ words. [Johnson, ibid]

    James might be expected to serve as a window into the earliest Jesus traditions, even if it is not actually the work of Jesus’ own brother. There do seem to be a number of ways in which this work reflects some knowledge of the sayings and practices of Jesus.

    • Ask for what is needed, since God is generous and ungrudging. (Matt 7:7-11) [Jas 1:5-6]
    • The lowly raised up, and the rich brought low (Matt 20:16) [Jas 1:9-10]
    • Criticism of the rich [Jas 1:10-11; 5:1-6]
    • Use of Beatitudes [Jas 1:12]
    • Deliverance from temptation (Matt 6:13a) [Jas 1:12-16]
    • Use of Parables [Jas 1:22-26; 3:2-6]
    • Blessed for Doing (John 13:17) [Jas 1:25]
    • Blessed are the poor (Matt 5:3) [Jas 2:2-7]
    • Keeping the commandments (Mark 12:28-34) [Jas 2:8-12]
    • Unforgiving servant (Matt 18:23-35) [Jas 2:13]
    • Practical charity (Matt 25:31-46) [Jas 2:14-17]
    • By their fruit (Matt 7:16-20) [Jas 3:11-12]
    • On Judging (Matt 7:1-2a) [Jas 4:11-12]
    • On Anxieties (Matt 6:25-34) [Jas 4:13-15]
    • On Oaths (Matt 5:33-370 [Jas 5:12]
    • Healing and Forgiveness (Matt 10:1,7-8) [Jas 5:13-18]
    • Scold and Forgive (Matt 18:15) [Jas 5:19-20]

    Even if some of these items derive from the post-Easter community, this list indicates a significant focus on traditions associated with Jesus.

    Gospel: Jesus and the purity codes

    The Gospel for all three major lectionaries deals with excerpts from Mark 7:1-23, a complex tradition that preserves a memory of Jesus as someone who intentionally contravened the purity requirements of his own society and advocated a radical reinterpretation of purity to apply to internal dispositions rather than external observance.

    The following comments come from Marcus Borg, Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus. (Trinity Press International, 1998):

    … one of the consequences of the Pharisaic extension of priestly regulations to nonpriests was the insistence that hands be washed before even ordinary meals. At issue here, of course, was not hygiene but holiness. According to both Mark and Q (or Luke), Jesus and his disciples were charged with eating with unwashed hands. Both sources indicate deliberate nonobservance and give no reason to suggest that the behavior was necessitated by special circumstances.

    To determine the response of Jesus to this accusation, the complexities of Mark 7:1-23 must serve as a point of departure. As it stands in Mark, it begins with the accusation regarding washing of hands and climaxes with v. 15:

    There is nothing outside of a person which by going into that person can defile;
    but the things which come out of a person are what defile.

    There is virtual unanimity among all schools of criticism that this saying is authentic. The major issue is the meaning of the saying. To what did it refer when Jesus spoke it? Since it was spoken to some concrete situation involving controversy with opponents, its primary thrust is to be determined by that controversy rather than in isolation.

    In Mark, it has two different thrusts to two different audiences. in public (v. 14), it answered the Pharisaic charge that Jesus’ disciples ate with unwashed hands. In private (vv. 17-23), to the disciples, it nullified the Mosaic laws on clean and unclean foods (Deut. 14:3-20; Lev. 11), most explicitly in v. 19b: “Thus he declared all foods clean.”

    That the second thrust is authentic is unlikely for several reasons. First, there is no indication elsewhere that this was an issue during the ministry. Indeed, had Jesus rejected the food laws of the Pentateuch, most likely an accusation to that effect would have been made and preserved, but no such accusation is reported. Though this is an argument from silence, it has some force since accusations about sabbath observance, washing of hands, eating with tax collectors and sinners, etc., do appear. Of greater weight is a second reason: the indecision of the early Jesus movement after Jesus’ death over the continued validity of the Mosaic laws on forbidden foods is virtually inexplicable if Jesus had unambiguously rejected the distinction between clean and unclean foods. Moreover, v. 19b, which is responsible for directing the saying to the question of forbidden foods is in a section (vv. 17-23) commonly viewed as secondary …

    Two possibilities remain: it was addressed to a conflict which can no longer with certainty be identified, or it was directed to the issue of ritual purity of hands at meals. The first is certainly possible, though the second is more probable for two reasons. Concern about ritual purity of hands is a known controversy; and Luke independently of Mark reports a Q saying with similar content as a reply to the same accusation:

    Luke 11:38-41: The Pharisee noticed with surprise that Jesus had not begun by washing before the meal. But the Lord said to him, “You Pharisees! You clean the outside of the cup and plate; but inside you there is nothing but greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside too? But cleanse those things which are within; and behold, everything is clean for you.”

    … Taken together, the accusations and replies reported by Mark and Luke lead to very important conclusions. First, the behavior against which the accusations were directed contravened an important aspect of the extension of priestly regulations to daily life: it denied the validity of one of the main requirements for membership in a Pharisaic havurah. Second, the warrant given for the contravention called into question and indeed negated the whole notion of how holiness was to be achieved. The equation between holiness and separation, qadosh and parush, was denied, for holiness had nothing to do with separation from the external sources of defilement … Denying the equation of qadosh and parush constituted an eminently clear opposition to the main thrust of Pharisaic polity and indeed to much of the postexilic development of Judaism.

    The historic meaning of the challenge can be refined by comparing it to two modern ways of stating the significance of Mark 7:15, both of which blunt the cultural and political edge of the controversy. Perrin and Kasemann, both of whom appreciate the radical nature of the saying, argue that here Jesus established the distinction between the sacred and the secular. Though this may finally be quite similar to what is argued above, putting the issue in the form, “Jesus denied the equation of holiness and separation,” has the advantage of being cast in the form of a cultural question of the day. Its historical bite as a challenge to the Pharisaic program for Israel can be better appreciated. Its controversial setting is more seriously obscured by a second modern way of stating the point: Jesus replaces the concern about external rectitude with a concern about the inner spiritual health of the individual. Though this is a valid insight, it both generalizes and individualizes what was originally a specific challenge to a collective model of behavior for a society.

    Here, then, in the behavior of Jesus and his disciples, we have a specific contravention of a necessary prerequisite for table fellowship as understood by the Pharisees, and of a major element in the program to make Israel a kingdom of priests. Moreover, the warrant which Jesus articulated for such nonobservance denied not only the necessity of ritual washing of hands, but also undercut the understanding of holiness as a separation upon which hinged Israel’s course in the present and anticipation of the future. [pp. 111-13]

     

    Jesus Database

     

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

     

    Music Suggestions

    See David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.

  • Taking the Bible seriously, but not literally

    [A sermon preached at St John’s Anglican Cathedral, Brisbane at Evensong, on Sunday, 26 August 2012.]

    Anglicans have a long history of taking the Bible very seriously while avoiding the folly of taking it literally.

    In the Articles of Religion, commonly known as the Thirty-Nine Articles, we find the Church of England carefully setting down some important principles about the place of Scripture in the life of the church, the obligations—both moral and theological—flowing from Scripture, and some significant limitations on the capacity of the church to use the Bible.

    As we have slowly and reluctantly come to terms with the European cultural revolution known as the ‘Enlightenment,’ we have found—not surprisingly—that even these carefully-crafted articles seem rather out of date, if not irrelevant. It is not so much that they are wrong. It is more that they are addressing questions that no one really cares about any longer, and doing so in ways we find less than compelling. They are top-down theological statements, and we just don’t buy that way of determining truth any more.

    The Articles of Religion capture the mind of the church up to the time they were written. They reflect the best of faithful scholarship prior to 1562. Naturally, they do not engage with or reflect the changes that have happened in the 450 years since then.

    In the spirit of the Articles of Religion, how might a faithful and informed Anglican from the twenty-first century take the Bible seriously, while avoiding the error of taking the Bible literally?

    BIBLE360

    Over the past few months I have been privileged to work on the development of the BIBLE360 program. This program was commissioned by the Archbishop and then announced at Synod in June, as part of his call for members of this Diocese to engage more directly with Scripture. Since returning from Israel last month I have begun to present these seminars in parishes and deaneries around the Diocese; 3 so far, and 12 to go before Christmas!

    As you may know, the Archbishop has challenged all members of our church to do three things in the twelve months between Synod this year and Synod next year:

    1. Participate in a BIBLE360 seminar;
    2. Engage in daily Bible reading;
    3. Join a small group with a focus on the study of the Bible and its application to life.

    We estimate that at least 800 people will have attended a BIBLE360 seminar before the end of this year, and we are planning for several thousand to have done so by June next year.

    As was clear from the Archbishop’s charge to Synod, central to this whole program is the belief that we need to take the Bible seriously, but should not make the mistake of taking it literally.

    In the next few minutes I hope to give you a sense of what we do at a BIBLE360 seminar, and why it matters for the long term health of the church as well as the wider community.

    The plastic Bible

    Taking the Bible seriously involves developing a realistic—“eyes-wide-open”—sense of what the Bible is really like. At times I discern a romantic and mistaken sense of what kind of text we actually have, and what we might realistically expect the Bible to do for us in the life of the church.

    Some of these issues are addressed in more detail in a new book, The Once and Future Scriptures, that will be published later this year, with essays by several senior priests from our diocese. More about those issues at the book launch soon!

    Last year we celebrated the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible. It was an important anniversary and provided an opportunity to reflect on a book that really changed—and in many ways, shaped—the world as we know it.

    During the 400 years that have passed since the KJV was published we have gained access to a treasure trove of ancient biblical manuscripts. We now have a vast set of information simply not available to the faithful scholars who laboured to create the KJV.

    For the record, we have around 5,500 Greek MSS for the NT and a further 5,000 or so in other ancient languages: Latin, Syriac, etc.

    Among these 10,000 or so MSS are the great fourth-century and fifth-century Bibles, which are our oldest substantial copies of the Bible.

    Of these, the most significant is the Codex Sinaiticus from St Catherine’s Monastery at Mt Sinai. This is the oldest Bible anywhere in the world. It dates from some time in the fourth century. In other words, there is a gap of around 300 years between the time of Jesus and the oldest surviving copy of a substantial portion of the Bible; and even this marvelous MS is missing about half of the Old Testament (Genesis to 1 Chronicles).

    Sinaiticus includes the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, the New Testament, and two other early Christian documents not found in our version of the NT: the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

    Similar variations from the contents of later Bibles occur in other ancient MSS and in other lists of books accepted for reading in the church.

    In addition to the inclusion of books not found in many modern English Bibles, Sinaiticus also has some other surprises for us:

    1. Some words are not written out in full, but simply represented by abbreviations. This may seem a minor point, but it raises the issue of how obsessive we wish to be about the individual words that constitute the sacred text. And the words are not insignificant terms, but the sacra nomina: God, Jesus, Christ, Lord, and similar words.
    2. All of the texts is written in capitals, without any spaces between words, and with no punctuation. Without spaces and punctuation the meaning is often uncertain and needs to be decided by the reader.
    3. Further scribes over 800 years or so have made some changes to correct what they saw as omissions and other errors. This was an ancient MS that kept evolving for almost 1,000 years. Similar developments have been studied in other major codices.
    4. Some of the books in Sinaiticus (and also in other ancient MSS) are longer or shorter than the forms we know for the same biblical books from the KJV.
    5. Finally, for now, we can note that Sinaiticus has some important textual variations so that a number of passages long accepted as part of the Bible and therefore included in the KJV are now left out of modern Bibles. This is good news for those of us not so keen on handling poisonous snakes in worship, as those verses from the end of Mark 16 have now been removed from our Bibles!

    The Bible seems to be less fixed, and rather more ‘plastic’, than we might have anticipated. It has changed its contents in minor and major ways from time to time and from one place to another.

    Very few of these changes involve major theological issues. However, it is time for the ecclesiastical ostrich to pull her head from the sand and take seriously the kind of book we actually have in the Bible.

    There is no ancient copy of the Bible that matches exactly with a modern Bible.

    We do not have the original for any of the books in the Bible, but only copies of copies of copies.

    Indeed, with hand-written documents the very idea of an ‘original’ document is questionable. As such a book is hand-copied, another original document is formed. There was very little capacity for ‘version control’ of documents in the ancient world, and readers back then were less naive about that than many modern Christians seem to be.

    As early as Jeremiah, we find warnings about the lying pens of the scribes (Jer 8:8); and Ignatius of Antioch (Phila 8:2) prefers the “unalterable archives” of Jesus’ death and resurrection over the written documents of the church.

    In which ever way we imagine the Bible to function in the life of the church, we must have a view of Scripture that is realistic about the contingent nature of its contents and the vagaries of its transmission through time.

    We do not have a perfect Bible, nor do we have a perfect church or a perfect reader. We can kid ourselves otherwise, but in the end we must adopt a mature outlook.

    This is the real Bible that we actually possess. It did not drop out of heaven fully formed, and its journey through time has been marked by controversy and sanctity.

    A diverse text

    At this point in time we have an agreed reconstruction of the ancient biblical texts based on the best judgements of scholars from a wide range of faith traditions. No ancient MS matches the latest edition of the Biblica Hebraica the Septuagint, or the Greek New Testament.

    However, the diversity within Scripture is more extensive than textual variations, or differences over which books to include and the order in which they should be arranged.

    The more important diversity that needs to be accommodated as we read Scripture relates to the variations in genre within the Bible.

    Richard Burridge was referring to this very point in his sermon here just two weeks ago.

    In the second session of the BIBLE360 seminar we explore some of the different genre to be found within the Bible, including:

    • narratives: stories, history, legends, gospels, acts
    • lists: genealogies, places, tribes, heroes
    • laws: rules and regulations for religion as well as everyday life
    • prophetic texts: oracles, promises, sermons, threats
    • liturgical texts: especially the Psalms
    • wisdom literature: Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes
    • letters: especially in NT, but also in OT
    • apocalyptic writings: especially Daniel & Revelation

    If we mistake the genre, and read hyperbole as regulation (for example), we end up with gross mistakes in our interpretation of Scripture. We would also have churches full of blind people, who had torn out their eyes, and amputees who had removed their hands.

    When this happens—as it often has done in the history of the church—well-meaning but mistaken people turn religion into a toxic recipe rather than the elixir of life. All too often the Scriptures have become ‘texts of terror’ endorsing ethnic cleansing, homophobia, patriarchy, racism, slavery, violence, and xenophobia.

    Sometimes the Bible is indeed guilty of celebrating and promoting such atrocities. In such cases we need to have the integrity to reject such teaching, and turn away from such evil practices.

    Some of the time when the Bible is invoked in support of power and privilege the problem lies with the reader rather than the text.

    The creationism debate arises from a total misunderstanding of both the contents and the genre of the Bible. Rather than embrace the wonderful new insights into the universe being gifted to us by the sciences, some people of faith persist in reading the creation myth of Genesis 1 as if it were a description of how God created the world.

    Category error. Genre mistake. Garbage in, garbage out.

    When we tune our reading of the Scripture to the appropriate settings for the genre being read, we are open to new wisdom for our lives.

    In the BIBLE360 seminars participants explore different biblical texts, noting their genre, and exploring some of the ways in which their favourite Bible passages can be read (or cannot be read).

    We also discover the power of imagination to assist us in entering into the world of the texts, and being surprised by joy at the fresh insights this can open up for us.

    The Bible in the Life of the Church

    One of the most challenging aspects of a BIBLE360 seminar is not the discovery of the vagaries of the Bible’s own history, or the immense diversity of its literary forms, but rather the questions that arise around the use of the Bible in our own lives and in the life of the church.

    At one extreme, we may know people who still use the Bible like a promise box. Some here may know I mean, but for others (thankfully) the allusion will break down. Error 404.

    The ‘promise box’ was a small cardboard container inside which were placed dozens of small pieces of paper, each carefully rolled to form a tiny tube. On each piece of paper was printed a verse from the Bible with a ‘promise’ thought to be relevant to Christian life. These were selected at random, using a very small pair of metal tongs.

    Such a verse-a-day approach to reading the Bible places the reader at the centre of the process, and totally ignores the context of the biblical verse being picked. These words are timeless, unrelated to historical context, and directly relevant to me personally. While many people found this a helpful devotional practice, I consider it barely better than checking the stars in the newspaper.

    At the other end of the spectrum, we have high-level commissions of the national and international church comprising a careful balance of well-qualified people from different theological perspectives, seeking to determine the meaning of Scripture for the church today on controversial questions such as conception and fertility, sexuality and gender, stem-cell research, refugees, climate change, or end of life issues. No random picking of Bible verses here. But no clear and simple answers either.

    In our seminar we review our church’s received traditions about the importance of the Scriptures, and explore some of the ways in which we encounter the Bible in the life of the church. We appreciate how Scripture permeates our worship, but we also note how some parts of the Bible are rarely heard in the liturgy, or carefully side-stepped in our personal and collective lives.

    As part of this segment in the BIBLE360 seminars we take up the challenge of Richard Burridge for our reading of Scripture to begin with Jesus. As followers of Jesus it is his words and his actions that create the lens through which we read the Bible.

    This does not mean we find Jesus hiding under every rock in the Old Testament, but it does mean we read those ancient Jewish texts with Christian eyes. We respect their Jewishness, and affirm the Jewish readings of their own sacred texts which are also the larger portion of our own Bible—but we read the Bible as Christians; indeed as Anglicans!

    We neither seek nor offer a package that explains the Bible, imposes a unity across its many different documents, or requires us to read the Scriptures in one particular way. But we do affirm the belief that nothing matters more in the Christian life than engaging with the Bible.

    As I have found myself saying at these seminars, “I can imagine being a Christian without a church, but not without a Bible” With the Bible—and the support of other disciples of Jesus—I can rebuild the church. Without the Bible, I could never be sure my church was faithful to the legacy of Jesus. And as a Christian, that matters to me.

    Conclusion

    The final stage in a BIBLE360 seminar is for people to determine their own response to all this. We share some practical ideas about reading the Bible, accessing the resources we need, finding a small group of people with whom to share our study of Scripture.

    By the end of the seminar, however, it comes down to the individual response each participant makes.

    These seminars include information, but they are not just about acquiring more knowledge.

    These seminars encourage us to see the Bible afresh, but they are not just an enjoyable day spent working with Scripture.

    These seminars invite participants to make explicit personal plans for their own engagement with Scripture, and to decide what they will do about getting started on those plans … in the next week.

    I offer the same invitation to you here this evening.

    We can sit in this cathedral and hear others talk about the Bible. We can stay behind for a few minutes to argue with the preacher about our favourite theological hobby horse. Or we can quietly determine right now that this week the Bible will get more attention from us than it did last week.

    Whether that happens or not is entirely your call.

  • Pentecost 13B (26 August 2012)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • I Kings 8:(1,6,10-11),22-30,41-43 & Psalm 84 (or Joshua 24:1-2a, 14-18 & Psalm 34:15-22)
    • Ephesians 6:10-20
    • John 6:56-69

     

    Introduction

    It may be helpful to think of these readings as each engaging in some way with the theme of taking sides:

    • 1 Kings 8: God takes up residence in Jerusalem’s Temple
    • Joshua 24: Israel renews its loyalty to God under the covenant
    • Ephesians 6: Faith as a struggle against the cosmic powers
    • John 6: Division between Jesus’ disciples over his meaning

     

    First Reading: Solomon dedicates the Temple

    The prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem provides an opportunity for the prophetic story teller to articulate some key themes of the Deuteronomistic reformation that is described in 2 Kings 22-23. This prayer is one of several speeches that provided the narrator with strategic opportunities to present the theological framework for the unfolding story.
    Other speeches composed by the so-called Deuteronomist and placed on the lips of key characters include:

    • Moses (Deut 1:1-4:43) – historical review and a call to Torah obedience
    • Moses (Deut 6:1-11:32) – sermon as prelude to the recital of the Torah (chs 12-26)
    • Moses (Deut 31:30-32:43) – the “Song of Moses”
    • Moses (Deut 33:1-29) – the Blessing of Moses
    • Joshua (Josh 24:1-15) – Covenant renewal ceremony speech
    • Samuel (1Sam 12:1-25) – Samuel’s speech at the coronation of Saul
    • Nathan (2Sam 7:1-29) – Nathan’s oracle about the House of David

    This literary device is also found in other biblical books with lengthy prayers and speeches attributed to such characters as:

    • Ezra (Neh 9:6-37)
    • Daniel (Dan 9:1-19)

    and various figures in Luke-Acts:

    • Jesus (Luke 4)
    • Peter (Acts 2 & 10-11)
    • Stephen (Acts 7)
    • James (Acts 15)
    • Paul (Acts 13, 17, 20, 22, 24 & 26)

    The prayer of Solomon is a fiction created by the narrator to communicate important theological concerns of the time when Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings were being created as a prophetic recital of the story of Israel/Judah. The theme of covenant faithfulness was central to their concerns, with each king being assessed according to his loyalty to the beliefs and values of the prophetic circles driving the reform movement in the time of Josiah (640-609 BCE).

    This reformation is known as the deuteronomistic movement because its ideas are given classical expression in the book of Deuteronomy, some portion of which may have been the “book of the Torah” found in the Jerusalem Temple during its refurbishment during the reign of Josiah:

    The high priest Hilkiah said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD.” When Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, he read it. Then Shaphan the secretary came to the king, and reported to the king, “Your servants have emptied out the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of the workers who have oversight of the house of the LORD.” Shaphan the secretary informed the king, “The priest Hilkiah has given me a book.” Shaphan then read it aloud to the king. When the king heard the words of the book of the law, he tore his clothes. Then the king commanded the priest Hilkiah, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Achbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary, and the king’s servant Asaiah, saying, “Go, inquire of the LORD for me, for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that has been found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our ancestors did not obey the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us.” [2Kings 22:8-13]

    As that story itself indicates, the Temple in Jerusalem played an important role in the history of the Jewish people. Destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE, its reconstruction (albeit on a more modest scale) was one of the first priorities of the post-exilic community under the leadership of prophets like Haggai and Zechariah. Centuries later, Herod the Great would seek to cultivate popular support by a grand scheme to refurbish and enlarge the Temple. That also served as a major work creation program as the project lasted many decades. The recent completion of the Herodian Temple, and its success in attracting vast wealth from pious Jews around the Roman Empire, may have been a factor in the Jewish uprising in 66 CE. Four years later the Temple again lay in ruins. In modern Israel, the dream of rebuilding the Temple is again a focus for fanatical Jewish nationalists and a visit to the Temple Mount site in late 2001 by the then Opposition Leader, Ariel Sharon, triggered the second Palestinian uprising (intifada).

    Pictures and historical notes on the Temple Mount site
    Psalm 122 evokes a timeless sense of the significance of the city and its Temple, while invoking peace on all who love her:

    I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the LORD!”
    Our feet are standing within your gates, O Jerusalem.
    Jerusalem–built as a city that is bound firmly together.
    To it the tribes go up, the tribes of the LORD,
    as was decreed for Israel, to give thanks to the name of the LORD.
    For there the thrones for judgment were set up, the thrones of the house of David.
    Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: “May they prosper who love you.
    Peace be within your walls, and security within your towers.”
    For the sake of my relatives and friends I will say, “Peace be within you.”
    For the sake of the house of the LORD our God, I will seek your good.

    Joshua renews the Covenant

    As already mentioned, the stirring speech by Joshua is another literary device fashioned by the Deuteronomist. These anonymous prophets of the biblical past are the unsung heroes of our spiritual tradition. They created a way of seeing the past that shaped their present and gave it a future. They did this so well that their story has become our story, even when we find ourselves dissenting from its narrow ethnic focus or pressing a wider vision of God’s justice for women, the poor, or homosexuals.

    We acknowledge – but do not explicitly address in this week’s notes – the historical and ethical problems bound up in these canonical texts.

    What we find expressed in this ancient legend of a covenant ceremony led by Joshua after the bloody conquest of Canaan is a prophetic glimpse of a different social order than one where power is concentrated in the hands of a ruler and his immediate retainers. This elite view of power holds sway in the corporate board room as much as in the royal palace.

    Israel’s Scriptures preserve another perspective. For the prophets, the “efficiency” of a king could only be tolerated if the “powers that be” were subservient to the values of the covenant. In that older covenant tradition, the obligations and the blessings extended to all the members of the community; not just to the king. This prophetic tradition has been for the most part the way less traveled, as men of religion seem to prefer to imagine God’s dealings with humanity as a secret deal giving privileges to the powerful.

    Can we recapture something of the collective identity that sees our destiny as bound up with one another? Can we say like Joshua, “As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord?” Can we enlarge our vision of “household” to include all humanity, and even the planet as a whole?

    Second Reading: Engaged in a Cosmic Conflict

    This passage concludes the series of readings from Ephesians.

    The selection develops the theme of a cosmic struggle between good and evil, now expressed in terms that seem more at home in a Gnostic document but also with parallels in authentic Pauline passages such as Rom 8:37-39:

    For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers,
    nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
    nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation,
    will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    The author engages in a fascinating piece of theological reflection upon the military equipment of a Roman soldier to encourage the readers to “stand firm:”

    • belt [truth]
    • breastplate [justice/righteousness]
    • shoes [good news of peace]
    • shield [faith/faithfulness]
    • helmet [salvation]
    • sword [Spirit]

    One of my most vivid memories of a Sunday School graduation class involves a dramatic presentation of this passage with a young man dressed progressively in each item before another figure (dressed as Satan) unsuccessfully threw darts at the him! While the metaphor is vivid, we might wonder at Jesus’ disciples embracing such military imagery in their spirituality. One can hardly imagine Jews engaging in a similar reflection on the equipment of a Nazi SS officer in the decades following World War II.

    A willingness to use such metaphors in their religious literature may be another pointer that this book comes from a time later in the 1C, when the majority of Christians would have found it easy to identify with the character of a Roman soldier. These would not be Jewish Christians around the time of the Jewish War (66-73 CE).

    The theological problem posed by militarism in Christianity is captured nicely in this extract from Walter Wink:

    When, beginning with the emperor Constantine, the Christian church began receiving referential treatment by the empire that it had once so steadfastly opposed, war, which had once seemed so evil, now appeared to many to be a necessity for preserving and propagating the gospel.

    Christianity’s weaponless victory over the Roman empire eventuated in the weaponless victory of the empire over the gospel. No defeat is so well disguised as victory! In the year 303, Diocletian forbade any member of the Roman army to be a Christian. By the year 416, no one could be a member of the Roman army unless he was a Christian.

    It fell to Augustine (d. 430) to make the accommodation of Christianity to its new status as a privileged religion in support of the state. Augustine believed, on the basis of Matt. 5:38-42, that Christians had no right to defend themselves from violence. But he identified a problem which no earlier theologian had faced: what Augustine regarded as the loving obligation to use violence if necessary to defend the innocent against evil. Drawing on Stoic just war principles, he articulated the position that was to dominate church teaching from that time right up to the present. Ever since, Christians on the left and on the right, in the East and in the West, have found it exceedingly easy to declare as “just” and divinely ordained any wars their governments desired to wage for purely national interests. As a consequence, the world regards Christians as among the most warlike factions on the face of the earth. And little wonder; two-thirds of the people killed in the last 500 years died at the hands of fellow-Christians in Europe, to say nothing of those whom Christians killed in the course of colonizing the rest of the world.

    As Gandhi once quipped, “The only people on earth who do not see Christ and His teachings as nonviolent are Christians.”

     

    Gospel: Divisions over Jesus

    This week’s Gospel concludes the extended series on the Bread of Heaven theme from John 6. Next week the major lectionaries all revert to Mark, the default Gospel for Year B in the three year cycle.

    It is something of a surprise to read (6:59) that Jesus has been delivering this discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum, since the action has all seemed to be outdoors until this note.

    John now describes a conflict within the band of disciples (not between Jesus and “the Jews” such as we often find in GJohn). Some of the disciples find this teaching about eating Jesus’ body and drinking his blood to be offensive. As John tells the tale, this is evidence that they were not blessed by the Father with the spiritual disposition required for discipleship.

    The Johannine community had evidently experienced painful schism towards the end of the 1C, with those who had separated even earning the new label, “antichrists:”

    Children, it is the last hour!
    As you have heard that antichrist is coming,
    so now many antichrists have come.
    From this we know that it is the last hour.
    They went out from us,
    but they did not belong to us;
    for if they had belonged to us,
    they would have remained with us.
    But by going out they made it plain
    that none of them belongs to us. [1John 2:18-19]

    Something of that painful experience—of separation from those who cannot embrace the idea of Jesus as the human (flesh and blood) face of God—is seen in another passage of 1John 4:1-3:

    Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming; and now it is already in the world.

    The readers of the Gospel are to imitate Peter who responds (6:68-69) when asked if the remaining disciples will also abandon Jesus:

    “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

     

    Jesus Database

     

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

     

    Music Suggestions

    See David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.

  • Pentecost 12B (19 August 2012)

    Contents

    Introduction

    It may be helpful to consider this week’s set of readings as exploring the question: How do we find ourselves dining at Wisdom’s table?

    In various ways the readings all seem to touch on some aspect of this question:

    • King Solomon chooses Wisdom as the gift of supreme worth. [1 Kings 3]
    • Lady Wisdom builds a house, sets a feast and sends out the invitations. [Proverbs 9 – alternative reading]
    • Christians are urged to be fill themselves with the Spirit rather than wine. [Ephesians 5]
    • Jesus is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to all who eat it. [John 6]

     

    First Reading: Solomon succeeds David

    At one level the RCL first reading simply tells of the succession as Solomon assumes power following the death of David.

    When the historical questions are considered, we realise that there are many unanswered questions. Despite extensive and well-funded Israeli excavations around the City of David site in Jerusalem, archaeologists have not found any evidence of the kind of urban development presupposed by the biblical legends of David and Solomon. At sites beyond Jerusalem (such as Meggido in the north), substantial building projects and fortifications that were once readily ascribed to Solomon have now been re-dated to much later periods. Like the description of his harem comprising 700 princesses and 300 concubines, Solomon’s geopolitical significance may have been exaggerated by the biblical story-teller.

    The theological questions in this story deal with the issue of what kind of disposition is appropriate for someone chosen to lead the community of God’s people. The description of the young ruler is a little surprising. He goes to the major shrine of the time, at Gibeon (in the tribal territory of Benjamin), whereas we might have expected him to go to the temporary shrine housing the Ark of the Covenant in Jerusalem.
    Gibeon was also a traditional Israelite (northern) site, and not a place with strong attachments to the southern tribes most associated with David:

    • Josh 9:3-27 The Bible knows a tradition that this stronghold was subdued without conquest, and that the people there provided timber and water for Israel.
    • Josh 10:1-43 Gibeon is the site of famous battle where God makes the sun stand still in the sky. (Interestingly, some people are more concerned to explain how such a thing can happen rather than to address the issues of genocide and ethnic cleansing implicit in such tales.)
    • Josh 18:25; 21:17 Gibeon is listed in the tribal territory of Benjamin and was identified as a Levitical city .
    • 2 Sam 2:12-28; 3:30 The famous pool of Gibeon features in a contest between twelve young champions from North and South.

    From the perspective of the story-teller, what was most needed was not a ruler with priestly inclinations (although Solomon would come to be remembered as the patron of the Temple) or even with a willingness to take advice from the prophetic texts (as asserted in Deut 17:18f). Rather, what is needed is the gift of wisdom. The one who chooses wisdom will also then receive everything else, since only a truly wise person can both acquire and profitably use power, wealth, etc.

    If, as many NT scholars believe, Jesus consciously drew on the wisdom traditions of ancient Israel, we may have an echo this principle in the following Kingdom saying from the Sayings Gospel Q: “Seek <first> God’s Empire, then everything else will be granted you.”
    Ancient Israel’s wisdom tradition comes into sight in a story such as this. The location within an ancient society where the wisdom tradition is to be found is precisely in the retainers who depend upon the king for their livelihood and whose services were in turn needed by the ruler. The court was a patron for learning, and stories such as this tale of Solomon choosing wisdom provided an excellent training module for sages in the ancient equivalent of a Humanities program. Not surprisingly, the wisdom writings in the Bible are the most international of the Bible’s texts and also the least interested in distinctively Israelite traditions such as the covenant. In those same circles, Solomon (the most “oriental” of Judah’s rulers) becomes the “patron saint” of wisdom, with several biblical and post-biblical works attributed to him: Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom of Solomon, Psalms of Solomon, and the Odes of Solomon.
    The alternative first reading from Proverbs 9 picks up the image of Lady Wisdom known to us from several biblical passages.

    In this passage Lady Sophia is portrayed as a wealthy householder. She has built a substantial house with seven strong pillars, slaughtered the animals for a feast, prepared the drinks, and dispatched her slave girls to summon the guests. Like the unwilling host in Jesus’ parable of the Feast, but in her case willingly, Lady Wisdom hosts a banquet to which all are welcome. This is very strong portrayal of a female character for a biblical text, and suggests that at least some women could be imagined as persons of wealth and influence.

     

    Second Reading: Drink the wine that God provides

    The Ephesians passage represents another theme within the Wisdom literature: sobriety and decorum in public conduct. In this case we have an implicit contrast between the excessive drinking that is a hallmark of a grand party, and the religious ideal of a more sober person whose satisfaction comes from the overwhelming presence of the Spirit. Interestingly, given the wisdom genre of the OT texts, Eph 5:15 begins with the classic call to wise living.

    One of the characteristic differences between Torah-centric Jewish wisdom texts (such as Sirach 24) and the Christian texts is that Jesus has now replaced the Torah as the embodiment of the divine wisdom.

    Gospel: Eat my flesh, drink my blood

    In traditional theology, this week’s passage from John 6 has been understood as the Johannine version of the words of institution (found embedded in the Last Supper story in the Synoptics and also attested in 1Cor 11:23-26).

    When read through the lens of an early Christian community that understood Jesus as divine Wisdom (Logos) in human form, this passage can perhaps be understood as a midrash that combines traditional Exodus traditions (the manna in the wilderness) with a view of Jesus as the new embodiment of the same divine Wisdom that was believed by Jewish writers of the time to have journeyed with the Israelites in the wilderness:

    Wisdom prospered their works by the hand of a holy prophet.
    2They journeyed through an uninhabited wilderness,
    and pitched their tents in untrodden places.
    3They withstood their enemies and fought off their foes.
    4When they were thirsty, they called upon you,
    and water was given them out of flinty rock,
    and from hard stone a remedy for their thirst. [WisSol 11:1-4]

    John 6:51-58 can be understood as a Christological reinterpretation of the ancient motif of Lady Wisdom setting a banquet and calling any who seek life to come and join the feast. As such it may represent a creative blending of a historical memory of Jesus’ practice of open commensality with early Christian Sophia Christology.

    Jesus Database

     

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

     

    Music Suggestions

    See David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.

  • Pentecost 11B (12 August 2012)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • 2 Samuel 18:5-9,15,31-33 & Psalm 130
    • Ephesians 4:25-5:2
    • John 6:35, 41-51

     

    First Reading: The death of Absalom

    The narrative in 2 Samuel has now advanced several years. David is now a much an older man and his several adult children are wreaking havoc within the dynasty and the nation in fulfillment of Nathan’s prophecy in 2 Sam 12:11-12. In particular, the prediction that David’s wives and concubines would be taken from him and publicly ravaged by another man, has been fulfilled in the rebellion led by his son, Absalom.

    The RCL spares us the sordid story, and takes us into the climax of the struggle for control of the throne. In an ironic twist, David’s men go into battle against the army of Israel with high casualties on both sides. The army of Israel is defeated and Absalom himself is captured and (contrary to David’s explicit instructions) killed. David’s concern for his son, and his grief at Absalom’s demise, make a powerful scene in a classic literary narrative from the ancient world.

    In preparing for this week’s services, it may be helpful to read the complete narrative:

    • Amnon rapes Absalom’s sister, Tamar (2Sam 13:1-22)
    • Absalom murders Amnon (2Sam 13:23-33)
    • Absalom goes into exile (2Sam 13:34-39)
    • Absalom returns to court (2Sam 14:1-33)
    • Absalom cultivates popular support (2Sam 15:1-6)
    • Absalom seizes power in a coup (2Sam 15:7-12)
    • David flees and prepares to fight back (2Sam 15:13-17:29)
    • Absalom’s forces defeated (2Sam 18:1-19:8a)
    • David is restored to power (2Sam 19:8b-43)
    • David suppresses northern resistance (2Sam 20:1-26)

    This complex of stories makes up a considerable percentage of 2 Samuel and must therefore be assumed to have particular significance to the prophetic story-tellers who put together this “complex-chain narrative.” It is most likely that this sorry saga of failure and betrayal was seen as a paradigm of the nation as a whole, and functioned to explain theologically the demise of the nation in the face of Babylonian conquest.

    In The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel (JSOTS 55. Sheffield, 1987) Thomas L. Thompson has established that ancient Hebrew story-tellers were adept at creating new stories of considerable length and complexity using traditional stories and motifs.

    Second Reading: Holy living

    This passage provides an excellent example of early Christian paraenesis, or moral instruction. Having surveyed several major theological themes in the earlier part of the letter, the author now turns to provide explicit practical instruction on holy living.

    Gospel: Glimpses of a tradition developing over time

    Jesus, son of Joseph

    The GJohn is well-known for its complex and highly-developed theology. Less recognized is the same Gospel’s capacity to preserve historical nuggets that would otherwise be lost to us. One of those may be surfacing here in the reference to Jesus as the “son of Joseph” and the comfort with which the Johannine story-teller can describe Jesus’ opponents as saying they know his “father and mother.”
    In chapters 6, 7 and 8 we find casual references to Jesus’ parentage or birth place that are at odds with the later Christian tradition:
    son of Joseph, we know his father and mother …

    They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” [John 6:42]

    not born in Bethlehem

    When they heard these words, some in the crowd said, “This is really the prophet.” Others said, “This is the Messiah.” But some asked, “Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he? Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?” So there was a division in the crowd because of him. Some of them wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him. [John 7:40-44]

    at least we know our father!

    They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing what Abraham did, but now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are indeed doing what your father does.” They said to him, “We are not illegitimate children; we have one father, God himself.” [John 8:39-41]

    not yet 50 years of age

    Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day; he saw it and was glad.” Then the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” [John 8:56-58]

    It is not clear just what the tradition behind GJohn knew about Jesus’ family origins, but it is hard to imagine that a Christian author who was familiar with either Matthew or Luke could have written these words. It may simply be that we need to acknowledge that within the first 100 years there were Christians who had no trouble speaking of Joseph as Jesus’ biological father, and did not know (or did not accept) the tradition of Jesus being born at Bethlehem. In GJohn the most complex Christology and the simplest biology stand side by side.

    Apart from our interest in recovering Jesus’ biological origins, this Johannine passage is also interesting in another way. The words attributed to the crowd (“Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”) seem remarkably close to the words of the crowd in Nazareth when Jesus is rejected by his own townsfolk:

    Mark 6:2-3
    “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

    Matthew 13:54-56
    “Where did this man get this wisdom and these deeds of power? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?”

    Luke 4:22
    All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth. They said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?”

    It is possible that John 6:42 preserves another version of the tradition first seen in Mark 6.

     
    Unless the Father draws them …

    The Jesus portrayed by the author of GJohn speaks of those who will not come to him to receive the bread of life because the Father has not drawn them.

    In some Christian circles, this has been interpreted as an expression of a divine decision to choose certain individuals (or even classes of people) for salvation, while intentionally consigning the remainder of humanity (and all of non-human creation) to destruction.

    It may be helpful to place this text alongside some other statements of the Johannine Jesus:

    I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold.
    I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice.
    So there will be one flock, one shepherd. [GJohn 10:16]

    Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.
    No one comes to the Father except through me. [GJohn 14:6]

    How are these different voices to be heard?

    It seems clear that we are dealing with a self-conscious Christian community that is deeply aware of its identity over and against the Torah observant synagogue communities (known as “the Jews” in GJohn), and also as different from (yet somehow connected to) the other Jesus communities, such as those associated with the Pauline mission, the Q community in Galilee, or even the Thomas Christians.

    GJohn 6 certainly expresses an awareness that some people, and particularly many of the Jews, will simply not accept Jesus as the bread of life, the one sent from God. For these Johannine Christians, Jesus was the only pathway they could now acknowledge (as expressed in GJohn 14:6). Yet there was also a sense that Jesus had sheep in “other pens” (GJohn 10:16).

    As disciples of Jesus in the 21C, we do not simply face the traditional questions of other Christian communities with different traditions than those we have practiced (ecumenism). Nor do we simply have to re-visit the age-old question of Jewish-Christian relationships as we acknowledge that Judaism is not fading away and that Jesus himself was never a Christian. We find ourselves pushed even further out into the deep waters. What about those other religions that simply were not known either to Jesus or to his earliest followers?

    Can we interpret this harsh saying of Jesus not as a declaration of eternal predestination to salvation for a select few, but rather as a statement acknowledging that the Father does not draw every human person to Jesus? For them, we might imagine Jesus saying that God’s generous love provides other pathways to life.

    Jesus Database

     

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

     

    Music Suggestions

    See David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.

  • Pentecost 10B (5 August 2012)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • 2 Samuel 11:26-12:13a & Psalm 51:1-12
    • Ephesians 4:1-16
    • John 6:24-35

    First Reading

    This week’s first reading in the RCL continues the story of David’s sexual liaison with Bath-Sheba, the wife of one of his senior officers. Having arranged for Uriah to be murdered on the battlefront, David is now able to add Bath-Sheba to his collection of wives.

    The heart of the story concerns God’s rebuke of David for his sin. This was couched in the famous parable of the poor farmer whose only sheep was taken for the pleasure of a rich neighbor who had many many animals in his flock.

    The use of such “case studies” when seeking to gain the ruler’s decision on a particular case is also known from other stories in the OT. A similar device appears in 2Sam 14 when a woman from Tekoa (later the home village of the prophet Amos) is used by another of David’s officials to engage the king on a difficult personal matter.

    The punishment that befalls David and Bath-Sheba is harsh and unremitting. The child born as a result of their passion will become ill and die. Worse still, if that is possible, their family will never be free from intrigue and violence:

    Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house,
    for you have despised me,
    and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.
    Thus says the LORD:
    “I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house;
    and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor,
    and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun.
    For you did it secretly;
    but I will do this thing before all Israel,
    and before the sun.”

    This grim prophecy will be worked out in the narratives that follow in 2 Samuel and 1 Kings.

    While the narrative corrects the abuse perpetrated by David, the story still leaves much to be desired as a moral text. There is no hint of challenging the royal prerogative to take other men’s wives, nor indeed to enjoy sexual relations with multiple partners drawn from the harem. We are still very much in an ancient patriarchal society. There is little of the “Kingdom values” proclaimed by Jesus in such a story.

    Like so much of the biblical texts — including such cultural icons as the Ten Commandments — the social realities reflected here come from, and reinforce, a world made by and for men.

    Second Reading

    In Eph 4:1-6 we have a number of phrases intended to promote a sense of unity in a Christian community whose unity had been problematic: one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God …

    “Faith” here seems to have moved from being a trusting attitude towards God (as seen in Jesus’ own practice and in the authentic writings of Paul) to become a noun, an “object” that is held and treasured. If that is correct, then this may another clue that we are dealing with a late 1C author whose views on this point are not unlike those found in Jude 3 (“contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints”).

    These words continue to play a role in today’s church communities through their use in liturgies such as baptism services. That alone would make them words with a remarkable shelf life, and expressions of a deep continuity across the centuries.
    The second part of this passage (vss. 7-16), develops the idea of underlying unity so as to include a diversity of gifts and ministries within the faith community.

    It is not necessary to see lists such as we find here and in 1Cor 12:4-11 as definitive for church life in subsequent generations. It may be better to see both lists as time capsules that preserve a snapshot of how the early Christian communities associated with Paul organized their own lives together.

    One of the interesting things to note is that the earlier snapshot (1Cor 12) tends to speak of functions, while the later document (Eph 4) now speaks of functionaries:

    1 Cor 12:4-11

    12:4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 12:5 and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; 12:6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. 12:7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

    12:8 To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom,
    and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit,
    12:9 to another faith by the same Spirit,
    to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
    12:10 to another the working of miracles,
    to another prophecy,
    to another the discernment of spirits,
    to another various kinds of tongues,
    to another the interpretation of tongues.

    12:11 All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses.

    Ephesians 4:11-15

    4:11 The gifts he gave were that

    some would be apostles,
    some prophets,
    some evangelists,
    some pastors
    and teachers,

    4:12 equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 4:13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.

    4:14 We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 4:16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.

    What kind of community is presupposed by the description in 1Cor 12? Does the shift from functions exercised to functionaries—with the God-given authority to act within the Church—reflect a more settled vision of Christian community?

    If we tried to describe the ways in which the Spirit of God is manifest in our own faith communities, what kind of list would we develop?

    Gospel

    This is the second in a series of five Sundays that draws on John 6 for the Gospel:

    • John 6:1-21 – feeding of the 5,000 & Jesus walking on water
    • John 6:24-35 – controversy over the bread God gives
    • John 6:35,41-51 – controversy over Jesus
    • John 6:51-58 – eat my flesh, drink my blood
    • John 6:56-69 – Jesus loses many disciples

    The author moves from the story of the miraculous feeding to the discourse in which “Jesus” will develop the theme of himself being the Bread of Life that comes down from heaven. The transition is made by reference to traditional Jewish expectations that the Messiah’s appearance would be validated by certain “signs,” including miraculous bread from heaven.

    As we noted last week, a rabbinic commentary in the fourth century captures these expectations as follows:

    Rabbi Berekia said in the name of Rabbi Jicchaq:
    As the first redeemer [Moses] so the last redeemer [the Christ].
    As it is said of the first redeemer:
    And Moses took his wife and his sons and had them ride on an ass (Exod. 4.20),
    so the last redeemer, for it is said: Lowly, and riding on an ass (Zech. 9.9).
    As the first redeemer caused manna to come down,
    for it is said: Lo, I cause bread to rain down upon you from heaven (Exod. 16.4),
    so the last redeemer will cause manna to come down,
    for it is said: White bread will lie upon the earth (Ps 72.16, Midrash).
    As the first redeemer caused the well to spring forth (Num. 20.11),
    so the last redeemer will cause water to spring forth,
    for it is said: And a fountain will break forth out of the house of Yahweh. (Joel 3.18).

    Central to the author’s craft here is the motif of ironic misunderstanding on the part of Jesus’ protagonists:

    So when the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum looking for Jesus.
    When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” Jesus answered them, “Very truly, I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For it is on him that God the Father has set his seal.” Then they said to him, “What must we do to perform the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” So they said to him, “What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing? Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” Then Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
    Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.” (John 6:24-35 NRSV)

    In the Gospel of John we often find that Jesus says something, or performs some “sign” (his miracles are never simply acts of power in John, but always pointers to some deeper truth), that results in confusion and misunderstanding on the part of the observers. In many cases John seems to delight in using irony in these situations, with the uncomprehending opponents sometimes saying things that are more true than they realise.

    Examples of this can be seen in:

    • Mary and the steward at Cana (ch 2)
    • Nicodemus (ch 3)
    • Samaritan woman (ch 4)
    • Bread from heaven (ch 6)
    • Confusion over the Messiah’s origins (ch 7, esp. vss 40-44)
    • Caiaphas’ oracle (11:50)
    • Pilate and Jesus (see especially the alternative reading for 19:13)

    When Jesus challenges and clarifies their misunderstanding in John 6 the crowd responds with a line that echoes the request of the Samaritan woman after Jesus corrects her confusion:

    Crowd in 6:34 – “Sir, give us this bread always.”
    Woman in 4:15 – “Sir, give me this water, so that I may never be thirsty …”

    It is also interesting to note that up until the end of this section, the group of people engaging Jesus in conversation is simply called “the crowd.” However, as their disposition becomes increasingly hostile to Jesus in the following verses, the “crowd” becomes “the Jews.”

    This way of describing the opponents of Jesus is especially characteristic of John. Of the 76 examples of this phrase in the Gospels (including duplicates between the synoptics), 62 are found in John. By way of contrast, the phrase occurs only 5 times in the Pauline corpus, and only twice in the Book of Revelation.

    The implicit anti-Semitism of this phrase was perhaps not especially significant in the original context, when most Christians were Jewish. However, even in that context, the phrase still reflected the tensions between followers of Jesus and the Torah-observant “Jews” of the synagogue communities. As time passed, the anti-Semitism encoded within such biblical texts developed into theological stereotyping of the Jewish people, ethnic discrimination and murderous pogroms. The final obscenity was the Nazi holocaust.

    Jesus Database

    Crossan analysis:
    Item: 353
    Stratum: II (60-80 CE)
    Attestation: Single
    Historicity: –

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    See David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.

Exit mobile version